Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

"In page 4, line 15, to delete “or at alternative appropriate sites”."

This is to make sure that we are in compliance with our obligations under the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive because I know that we are seeking an exemption. What amendment No. 1 proposes is to delete the phrase “or at alternative appropriate sites” from section 2(1). This is because the explanatory memorandum cites article 2(4) of the EIA directive as the legal basis for the exemption of the development specified in the Bill from the wider application of the directive. If one looks at the wording of article 2(4) of the directive, however, it explicitly states that member states may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project from the provisions laid down in this directive where the application of these provisions would result in adversely affecting the purpose of the project provided the objectives of this directive. The key term here for us and our concern is “specific project”. This is because to apply for the exemption from the EIA directive, it will be quite specific to a specific project. That is why we think the language around “alternative appropriate sites” is a little too loose and is not consistent with the stringent criteria that are set down an article (2)4 of the directive. The use of the term “alternative appropriate sites” also brings section 5(1) into conflict with the EIA directive, because that section 5(1) a designated development from the EIA directive on the basis of the legally unsound definition currently contained in section 2.Why is this term included, as it is not consistent with the directive? What is meant by "alternative appropriate sites"? When we met with the officials I asked a question about the criteria they had and how many sites there were. I know people are saying that it is specific, that it only relates to energy generation and that there is a limited number of sites that would be appropriate for this, but we are setting aside planning law and environmental impact assessments. "Alternative appropriate sites" is a very loose term. That could mean anything. We need reassurance that it is not going to fall foul of EU law, which would mean that it is rejected and we would have to go back to the drawing board. We understand that this is emergency legislation, but it is very vague language for something that involves a very specific derogation from the EIA directive.